Author: branden Date: 2004-06-23 17:41:02 -0500 (Wed, 23 Jun 2004) New Revision: 1567
Modified: trunk/debian/CHANGESETS trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml Log: (cosmetic) Fix extraneous word. Modified: trunk/debian/CHANGESETS =================================================================== --- trunk/debian/CHANGESETS 2004-06-23 22:38:48 UTC (rev 1566) +++ trunk/debian/CHANGESETS 2004-06-23 22:41:02 UTC (rev 1567) @@ -53,6 +53,6 @@ Add FAQ entries: + What is the story with XFree86 being forked? + What is the story with XFree86's license? - 1562, 1563, 1564, 1565, 1566 + 1562, 1563, 1564, 1565, 1566, 1567 vim:set ai et sts=4 sw=4 tw=80: Modified: trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml =================================================================== --- trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml 2004-06-23 22:38:48 UTC (rev 1566) +++ trunk/debian/local/FAQ.xhtml 2004-06-23 22:41:02 UTC (rev 1567) @@ -426,9 +426,9 @@ class="other">xwin.org</code>, but later merged with an existing standardization project, <a href="http://freedesktop.org/";>freedesktop.org</a>. (Another group, <a href="http://www.xouvert.org";>Xouvert</a>, had also undertaken to fork the -XFree86 codebase.) While this was development was lauded by many redistributors -and feature-hungry end users, its short-term practical impact was fairly small. -OS distributors stuck with XFree86 because it was "ready" and it worked. +XFree86 codebase.) While this development was lauded by many redistributors and +feature-hungry end users, its short-term practical impact was fairly small. OS +distributors stuck with XFree86 because it was "ready" and it worked. Futhermore, the continued use of the MIT/X11 license terms ensured that cross-pollination between the projects would work to everyone's benefit. The redistributors, and thus most end users, were expected to continue using
